<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Government told to publish Gateway reviews on ID cards</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.no2id.net/newsblog/2007-05/government-told-to-publish-gateway-reviews-on-id-cards/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.no2id.net/newsblog/2007-05/government-told-to-publish-gateway-reviews-on-id-cards/</link>
	<description>The latest on Identity Cards and Databases in the UK</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:28:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nigel Sedgwick</title>
		<link>http://www.no2id.net/newsblog/2007-05/government-told-to-publish-gateway-reviews-on-id-cards/comment-page-1/#comment-71918</link>
		<dc:creator>Nigel Sedgwick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2007 14:16:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.no2id.net/news/newsblog/?p=587#comment-71918</guid>
		<description>If the OGC wish to withhold the names of individuals from the disclosure, they should publish the review with all relevant names withheld, simultaneously with applying to withhold those names.

Any other action indicates alternative motivation, or (potentially) abuse of process.

If the alternative motivation is not with the bounds permitted by the latest IC tribunal ruling, or there is potentially abuse of process, that might well be grounds for a case of maladministration against senior OGC staff.

Best regards</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the OGC wish to withhold the names of individuals from the disclosure, they should publish the review with all relevant names withheld, simultaneously with applying to withhold those names.</p>
<p>Any other action indicates alternative motivation, or (potentially) abuse of process.</p>
<p>If the alternative motivation is not with the bounds permitted by the latest IC tribunal ruling, or there is potentially abuse of process, that might well be grounds for a case of maladministration against senior OGC staff.</p>
<p>Best regards</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terry</title>
		<link>http://www.no2id.net/newsblog/2007-05/government-told-to-publish-gateway-reviews-on-id-cards/comment-page-1/#comment-71847</link>
		<dc:creator>Terry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 15:49:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.no2id.net/news/newsblog/?p=587#comment-71847</guid>
		<description>What?  This bunch of Nu Labour liars and cheats know nothing of open (and honest) government.  Pigs will fly first!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What?  This bunch of Nu Labour liars and cheats know nothing of open (and honest) government.  Pigs will fly first!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DW</title>
		<link>http://www.no2id.net/newsblog/2007-05/government-told-to-publish-gateway-reviews-on-id-cards/comment-page-1/#comment-71822</link>
		<dc:creator>DW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 07:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.no2id.net/news/newsblog/?p=587#comment-71822</guid>
		<description>I think it&#039;s going to be more than two weeks!
The OGC has two weeks to request that names be removed from the document, and after the tribunal decides yes or no for this, the OGC will have another two weeks to do the actual publication. Assuming there&#039;s no to-and-fro of pleading.

The Information Tribunal should prepare itself for a long complicated request that will take weeks to figure out. Add some strangely coincidental &#039;publication difficulties&#039; at the OGC at the end of the second 14-day period, and before you know it either the summer recess will be upon us or a convenient day will be available on which the information can be published. Alternatively they might provide us with a good example of what open government should be about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it&#8217;s going to be more than two weeks!<br />
The OGC has two weeks to request that names be removed from the document, and after the tribunal decides yes or no for this, the OGC will have another two weeks to do the actual publication. Assuming there&#8217;s no to-and-fro of pleading.</p>
<p>The Information Tribunal should prepare itself for a long complicated request that will take weeks to figure out. Add some strangely coincidental &#8216;publication difficulties&#8217; at the OGC at the end of the second 14-day period, and before you know it either the summer recess will be upon us or a convenient day will be available on which the information can be published. Alternatively they might provide us with a good example of what open government should be about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

